Posted by
Richard Stauch on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:24:18 PM
"[P]art of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us. There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region ..." President Barack Obama
1
"It is worth engaging and determining whether or not there are those who are willing to participate in a secure and stable Afghan state." Vice President Joe Biden
2
Interesting that Obama now admits we had some success in Iraq. It used to be like pulling teeth. Now he admits it, but only when it can be used to support his agenda, of course. That's not the most interesting hypocrisy of that statement, though.
And, let us not waste our time trying to figure out why Obama seems to want to
disrespect our friends and get familiar with our enemies. It must be very confusing for him, after all the training he's gotten from people like Saul Alinski.
3 It would appear Obama has gone Alinski one better, as he is not waiting for, but creating the base situation Alinski said was necessary to form alliances with the working poor ("They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future"). So much for "hope" and "change".
The debate turns to whether Pres. Obama wants to sit down and talk to, not only the leader of Iran (who desires to obliterate Israel with nuclear weapons), but also what the president's detractors called "moderate Taliban". Okay, let's give him the credit that he would like to lead the Afghanis to a coalition government made up of the leaders they've chosen by ballot and those who once ruled them by force. I'm sure that will work out well for Obama (if not for the Afghanis).
The president's proposition leads me to one question:
What is a "moderate Taliban"?
It is one who only craves murdering people for 5 generations.
Thanks,
Richard
3 "There's another reason for working inside the system. ... Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. ... If we fail to communicate with them [people with incomes from $5,000 to $10,000 a year in 1971 dollars], if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default." Saul Alinski, Rules for Radicals, prologue.